Mark As Story: An Introduction to the Narrative of a Gospel

by David M. Rhoads, Joanna Dewey, Donald Michie

Mark as Story has proved to be a useful resource for laypersons, students, and clergy for fifteen years. It introduces the Gospel of Mark as a unified composition, laying bare the narrative thread as well as the basic motifs. It is marked throughout by clarity, freshness, and a lively style.

Genres: Biblical Studies, New Testament, Theology, Christianity, Church, Faith, Christian

176 pages, Paperback

First published December 31, 1981

Reviews

[Terry Barnes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall, I would recommend this book. It will help your biblical understanding by looking at Mark's Gospel as a self-contained, literary unit. This limits the imposition of extra theology onto the text.

However, I disagree with many of the book's conclusions. Ironically, I believe the authors failed to heed their own teaching in the understanding of Mark's text.

In spite of this, it's still a good read and also helpful for fiction writers in understanding literary principles, and seeing these principles in gospel writing.

[Preston Nichols · Rating 4 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this book a lot. First published in 1982, it's a classic that helped introduce the field of narrative criticism into biblical scholarship. It is a very simple book that does what it sets out to do; it tells the story of Mark. It discusses how the story is told through settings, plot (loved this chapter!), and characters (these chapters were my favorite!). Throughout the book there are many connections made that I never considered and it helped me see how seemingly unconnected events were interrelated.

Usually Mark seems to be one of the first books of the Bible that people pick up to read. Being a minister, my motivation to read this book was to help people simplify Mark and to communicate the Gospel story in simple terms. This book definitely will help me do this in the future.

The reason I didn't give it a a full five stars were (1) the writers didn't include the longer ending in Mark--which is cool, there is definitely a conversation to have about its origins--but I wish they would have included how the longer ending added/or took away from their view of the story of Mark. (2) [and this might be petty but...] the book is written in Times New Roman font and had a ton of errors throughout, which is normally not a big deal, but this is the 3rd edition. C'mon Fortress Press! and (3) Lastly, I didn't agree with the authors' denial of miracles, Jesus's preexistence, or their interpretation of Mark 13 as a failed prophecy. Totally fine to disagree with the author theologically, but one of their main final points was to push readers to enter the dialogue with Mark and be transformed by the story. Yet, they deny the opening words of the book and consistently referred to Mark and his readers' worldview as "flat." I mean, if anyone has a "flat" worldview its people who don't believe in the supernatural! I felt like they undercut their most powerful admonition to their readers by doing that.

Overall, loved the book and would recommend it to others interested in narrative criticism, but would do so with a few qualifiers.

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

While this cosmic dimension of the story often lies in the background of events on stage, the audience does not forget that the watershed event in the story is the announcement at the beginning: "The rule of God has arrived." This is what unifies Mark's story: the inauguration of God's rule over all creation, over all people, over all of nature, over Israel, over all the nations, and over the Roman Empire. The events that follow in the story--exorcisms, healings, nature miracles, human transformations, conflicts with authorities, prophecies, persecution, death, resurrection, proclamation, and the projected cosmic upheavals--are all consequences of the active presence and power of God now made present in Jesus and those around him. The entire plot of Mark is unified around this theme.

Let's be obvious: scripture is not Wuthering Heights or The Sound and the Fury; it's something unto itself. We can employ mysticism or literary criticisms to sound its depths--and never fathom it all. There's one more reader out there who will bring to light something different, expose some hidden facet which creates a frisson of excitement, of affirmation, of realization.

Rhoads, Dewey, and Michie decide to apply reader-response theory to the Gospel of Mark. In the first few chapters, they stack the deck in their favor. Seldom have I seen critics who honestly produce the definitive text within their critical analysis. No kidding: They provide their own version of Mark which they then analyze. Like I said, definitely stacking the deck to produce the results the "critical analysis" should reveal. Their critical review of their reader-response tools is also, largely, suspect. If this were Wuthering Heights or The Sound and the Fury, this critical analysis would have been dismissed and forgotten--not in its third edition.

But the critical difference is this is a critical analysis of a gospel narrative. They're not going to please mystics or fundamentalists, but they provide open-minded Bible readers with yet another way to understand scripture. Before reading this, I had the misguided notion that Mark's account was an account in pieces, hardly structured. Matthew and Luke, in my opinion, worked more diligently in structuring the story of Christ. After reading this, I no longer believe that. Because despite the stacked-deck approach and the facile application of reader-response theory, these scholars provide enough argument for the depth and structure of this narrative, that Mark's account is more cohesive and profound than I had assumed.

And that is everything.

This work is obviously not for everyone. But if you want to visit the lonely crossroad where scripture meets literary analysis, then check this one out. It's not without its blemishes, but it is a worthwhile read.

[B · Rating 3 out of 5]

this book pushed an adoptionist stance and failed-prophecy view of the little apocalypse pretty hard, with no mention of alternate interpretations, and seems sloppily revised in my opinion to add in the reader-response ideas. it contradicts itself a few times on that.
it's very simple, would've been great for a bible study were it not for those problems. I do appreciate the anti-empire and nonviolence themes at least.

[Mikhael Hayes · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read on a recommendation from a mentor. Very good book. Usually I try to read Scriptures as historical documents, but this helped me watch the gospel according to Mark as a play. Opened a lot of doors for analysis, highly recommend

[Cal Fisher · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rhoads brings the reader through how one is to read Mark as a narrative with all the classic literary features/techniques of irony, repetition, foreshadowing, narrator types, etc. The early section of the book serves as a nice refresher to high school literature class and has some value in informing one how to read Mark and determine the emphases of the writer of Mark by looking at his literary techniques. However, what value Rhoads brings to reading Mark ends here. His ensuing interpretation of Mark as determined through using literary techniques commonly used in interpreting fiction works causes Rhoads to reject a divine Jesus and to adopt a Jesus who is merely man. Inevitably, as this ancient heresy as done for two thousand years, the Gospel Jesus proclaims becomes a moral call to all who hear to follow Jesus and model his way of life. A far cry from the true Gospel preached throughout the whole Bible where Jesus, the son of God, offers his life as “a ransom for many” (Mk 10:45) and all who place their faith in Christ and His finished substitutionary work are freely offered salvation.

[Camden Garrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

I loved reading this! While not approached from a conservative evangelical perspective, this text offers the best, consumable scholarship on understanding Mark as a narrative and oral narrative story that would have been performed for an audience. Rhoads' translation of Mark at the beginning was my favorite part of the book, as he labored to bring out aspects of the Greek text that most english translations have difficulty conveying. The connections he makes between sections of the text and how those sections relate to interpretation were enlightening. I also loved the way he discussed each character. While trying to appreciate Mark alone, Rhoads has adoptionistic interpretations (see page 60) denies that Jesus is God (see page 107), and even Jesus's omnipotence (pg. 107), though his argument would be that these are all based on Mark's text alone. Overall great read!

[Jonah Hill]

There are some really really good insights in here for how to read Mark faithfully, and good principles for how to read the gospels in general. A shame that Rhodes is not an evangelical like me—but I knew that before I began to read the book.

He had some really really bad things in here too. He was really inconsistent with his own methodology throughout, and that was very frustrating. For example, he says we must not base our theology on narrative progression. Yet he would go on to conclude that Jesus became God’s son at his baptism (adoptionism basically) because of narrative progression (and btw this is a claim that can be refuted by simply looking at the opening words of Mark’s gospel—which actually supports his original thesis that narrative progression isn’t as important for determining theology but oh well). Blah. Really good book, really bad book. That’s why I can’t rate it.

**one other really bad part in this book is Rhodes’ translation of υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου in Mark 2:10 and 2:28 as “son of humanity”. For evangelicals, this is a clear allusion to Daniel 7 and the divine Son of Man who is given authority and the kingdom from the Ancient of Days. But Rhodes does not address Daniel 7, and argues strongly that υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου is proof that he is “human and a representative of humanity who depends on God for his authority” and is “the son of God not by special birth or by virtue of a divine nature … neither God nor a divine being, but a human, a son of humanity who has been given great authority by God.”
Extremely gross and unpleasant, despite his other quotable, memorable and even helpful observations about Markan interpretation in the book.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the best, most exciting work on narrative criticism I’ve read so far. At its best (which is quite often throughout) it has me seeing this gospel in a new way, not taking any of my presuppositions into account.

[Chelsea Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bit dry, but an interesting perspective/approach on studying the book of Mark.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

A useful book and introduction to the Gospel of Mark from a narrative-critical perspective. This approach treats the text as a story as a means of approaching the original intents and audience of the document. I found this to be particularly useful in their discussions of discipleship and implied audience, but their discussion of the method was a little lacking. I was also slightly concerned with their extra-low Christology that may minimize Christ beyond the human figure we see in the text. Above all a good read and accessible for many levels.

[Mason Smith · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good narrative analysis of Mark. The rating is more of a reflection of my enjoyment than the quality of the book. For what it aims to do, I think it was completely successful.

[Jeremy · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book did a good job of teaching readers how to notice information in the text, and to notice the work of the author in arranging material. The authors came to some heretical theological conclusions about the person of Jesus, and often treated Gospel accounts as if they were fictional accounts that attempted to solicit a particular response form the reader. At best, it offered some great insights on the details of Mark's craft as a writer. At worst, it lied about Jesus being a man who was adopted by the Father. I hope I got what I needed to from this read-through, as it was also dry and this edition featured tiny print.

[Josh Trice · Rating 3 out of 5]

What this book does well is outline the story that is Mark’s Gospel and the various strategies employed by the author to communicate to whomever encounters the narrative.

What this book fails to do is distinguish how the Gospel of Mark is a specifically ORAL narrative. Everything out forward by the authors functions as EITHER oral performance or literary narrative.

Also, while I enjoyed many aspects of the book—I am uncomfortable with the Christology employed by the authors. However unintentional, the door is often left open for Jesus to be de-divinized.

Overall, this book is worth a curious, cautious look for those studying the Gospel of Mark.

[Jenna · Rating 4 out of 5]

A tremendous help in my Hermeneutics essay, when I chose to study the book of Mark. This book gave me a different perspective in understanding the context of what I was studying, and at the same time helped me gather my thoughts on all that I was reading and learning.

[David Blankenship · Rating 4 out of 5]

What if we read the gospel of Mark like an everyday story? How do the structures of plot, characterization, setting and so forth help a reader to understand the writer's purpose. This book helps with that. It is very dry and dense writing, but good to read with a copy of Mark on hand.

[B. Lee · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very important book, if also a bit limited in its insights and overly steeped in a New Critical approach.

[David · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this book in seminary and reread it as leader of a Bible Study. Explains in detail through narrative who the writer of the Gospel of Mark was writing to and why.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book was very helpful in shaping how I read the book of Mark, as well as the rest of the Synoptics. I would highly recommend it!

[Justin Lonas · Rating 4 out of 5]

A rather helpful plea to read the stories in Scripture as stories.

[Jacob Leininger · Rating 1 out of 5]

Christ is LORD

[Carlton · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book is quite literally heresy. Confused whether these authors have read the Bible… actually, confused if they read Mark at all. It completely overlooks explicit concepts stated by Mark, such as Jesus being the Son of God, and analyzing the “narrative” in a “literary” way feels more like a secular crucifixion of the gospel itself. Examining the Gospel of Mark in “narrative analysis” does not green light the ignorance of what Mark actually states. The few literary (note, not Biblical) insights that this book offers are insipidly extrapolated and buried beneath 150 pages of meandering, repetitive, and ungrounded suppositions. In a word (not THE Word), the book “misses the Mark”.

[Annabelle]

An interesting break-down of the Gospel of Mark. I really enjoyed the translation of the Gospel at the beginning because it helped me to look at Mark as one continuous story (not in sections as we normally read it). The authors pointed out a lot of things I wouldn't have picked up on my own and that will come in handy when I read Mark in the future.

[Charles Cowen · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perhaps because my background is actor and storyteller, I found this book incredibly helpful. By analyzing the Gospel through the lens of storytelling, the Gospel comes alive. This seems to keep the Gospel true to its oral history origins, and is also a lot of fun. The stories of Mark are now emblazoned in my mind because I've studied them through this method.

[Ken · Rating 4 out of 5]

Balanced literary approach to Mark. Took the text as the basis for understanding it, and used the social, religious and economic contexts of the times to enhance understanding. Very dry and academic, but enlightening and helpful. Made for a slow read.

[Josh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Definitely gives some helpful and insights but seemed long winded at times. Might be more helpful for someone who's less familiar with literature. At times, reads like it's for a high school English class.

[Rachel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Such a good read (I read the third edition). It helped me understand Mark in a fresh way, especially learning to think of it as a story to be told, not read. And that in Mark Jesus is not divine.

[Henry Sturcke · Rating 4 out of 5]

My first exposure to narrative criticism in New Testament studies, and I still think it's a good place to start, even though much work has been done in the field since.

[Drew · Rating 5 out of 5]

Enlightening! Opens up Mark in a powerful way. I no longer read Mark through the lens of reading history.

[Lily · Rating 3 out of 5]

A fresh insight to the gospel of Mark!